Today, in the newspaper - July 30, 2014 - the suggestion was made that complaints about Ontario doctors be made public (see Make all complaints about Ontario doctors public). Trial lawyers aren’t the only ones in favour of this potential exposé of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, an organization supposedly meant to protect the province of Ontario’s public and not only its physicians. Commenters on the article in the Star had the opportunity to express their views, if only for a few hours, before the comments section was closed to further comments. Those comments still remain, for anyone interested. It is one aspect of the health machine on which proponents of an improved health system have not yet been able to give their views, in only due to the secrecy involved in dealing with complaints by the public.

As chance would have it, today was also the first call I received from someone from CPSO in response to the complaint I submitted a month ago. I’m not sure, from our brief chat, however, that my complaint is being taken seriously. She started off speaking in such a shrill voice that I thought she must be new to the job, and a bit nervous. She also spoke too loudly for me to hear her without holding the telephone receiver a few inches away, and even then, her voice was muffled and unclear. Combined with that were various interruptions, from being cut off for a few seconds to scratchy background noises, as indicated in these excerpts from the CPSO's rep's ten minute phone call , combined in one MP3 - 3 minutes long - and playable on various media. It's difficult to get across how it felt to receive this phone call from this supposed investigator, who seems to be so unprepared and unprofessional (Paragraph revised Aug 18, 2014).

I eventually asked the CPSO contact to call back, after she had sorted out the problem with the new system she said she was using. When I inquired, she said she had been doing this job for 7 years, though it seems to me she was quite disorganized and had not even made herself familiar with the letter of complaint I sent to her. She didn’t act like a person who was representing the CPSO and dealing with an official complaint. She sounded more like a receptionist - a particular receptionist with the same habit. I’m not sure what kind of way that is some women have, of speaking three octaves higher than what’s normal. Is it done intentionally, or just a bad habit, I wonder.

The girl from CPSO, said she had dealt with this kind of case before and I asked what kind of case, exactly, and she responded “communication” and “termination.” To me, the kind of case it was and the kind of treatment I received while under the doctor’s care was more of an abuse problem than one of his inability to communicate well. And it was not so much that he decided to “terminate” me than the way he did it. Apparently, doctors can get rid of a patient, if they have good reason, and if they contact the CPSO and inform them, and provide reasons. That’s not how it happened in this case. I don’t consider myself a difficult person, and especially under such circumstances where my health depends on the good will of the doctor, I am not going to make life difficult for him. I always think a person deserves the benefit of the doubt.

The girl informed me about the process of an investigation, which involves her
collecting information from me, then writing up her own "unbiased" report, and
sending it to the committee of doctors and other members of society who would
examine the case and rule on it. She said to me that she had sent to the doctor
a copy of the letter of complaint that I had submitted to the College but had
not yet requested a response from him. Instead, she was calling me and asking me
about what was already in the letter of complaint, that she appears not to have
read too thoroughly. She wondered what was most important, what I would like to
see happen from this, and I could only respond with several important issues, as
I saw it, not just one or two.

As far as this girl who called from the CPSO to deal with my case, I have
already given her the benefit of the doubt, and there is little doubt left. And
that goes for the doctor, too. I had already tried to have this situation
resolved through the London & District Academy of Medicine, in a letter
presented at their board meeting, with no response at all from them, except to
find a new doctor. I presented them in writing with what at first was a minor
issue but which soon evolved into something more serious. And yet these issues
were not dealt with at all in the written response I received, nor in the
telephone conversation I had with the President.

While many readers from the discussion on the article in the newspaper agree that
it would be a good idea to make cases public, there can be no agreement how that
would happen. If the CPSO is left to make them public, there needs to be a
standardized complaints form for the main issues that are the basis of the
complaint, or to describe what the problems were. As it is right now, when I
attempted to complete the form, I found that the issues I listed as concerns –
"manipulative, hostile, and bullying tactics," "rushed decision-making,
irrelevant treatments and tests," and "unprofessional, lack of attention to
maintaining records" did not match up precisely with the details I wrote about
in the letter of complaint. The girl from the CPSO seems to have picked out a couple of items
with the intent of focusing on them, apparently, when I speak with her next,
after she has sorted out her new telephone system. So instead of seeing the
entire time I spent with the doctor as a pattern of abuse, she appears to want
to simplify it into a couple of specific problems. The form itself, as it
stands, requires a list of behaviours, or areas of concern. She has taken those
that I listed and changed them into two areas of concern – or two issues –
"communication" and "termination." But that doesn’t cover it. It doesn’t make
sense.

To be continued

Added Friday, Aug 8, 2014

I could speak at length about this, as there are so many things about not only the doctor himself but now, the person assigned to look into what happened, not to mention the complaints form itself.

The CPSO girl and myself spoke again the day after, on July 31. Her telephone was still not working as it should, her voice coming across loud and unclear at times. I found it difficult to talk to her and answer her questions as, like the doctor himself, she seemed to be missing the point or unable to understand, or chose to go off on a tangent – or perhaps use information retrospectively, to try to explain something that had not yet happened.

She did ask, at one point, did I still want him as my doctor, an indication that she did not comprehend one main aspect of my complaint, that the doctor quit, and did so suddenly, without a closing-out period to wind up, which is not the way the CPSO directs their physicians to “terminate” (her words) a patient.

Up to that point, when the doctor became exceptionally hostile and mean, I was still thinking that we might be able to work things out. But it is as though one must not bring shortcomings to some doctors’ attention, but simply put up with it, which I did for over a year, in this case.

So, she asked me if I still wanted him as a Dr and I said no. But the doctor did make accusations against me, in a letter to me. And was I expected to be happy about the idea of this man still being my doctor, after receiving this letter? What did she think, that I would want to still have him as my doctor, or was she going to use this statement of mine to imply in the formal report that I was going to quit the doctor anyway?

The CPSO girl also asked me whether the doctor had sent the final closing-out letter by registered mail. But that information was also available in the material I had sent to her. Perhaps there was too much to read through, or was she going to try to find a trivial matter to lay on the doctor, as an explanation for my insistence that he did not follow policy.

As it stands, the doctor made accusations against me, and according to CPSO policy, if he does that he is supposed to back them up. Although I did make an attempt to find a new doctor after he sent the letter to me, I did not succeed, and soon decided that I should not be the one to quit, as I did previously with a former doctor who had written nasty, untruthful comments about me in a letter of termination.

Doctors can do this – become unlikeable, thus an encouragement to the patient to leave the practice. I realize because of my research and writings, and somewhat controversial views, that some individuals and groups in society might not appreciate what I have to offer. So if being unkind doesn’t work, the doctor can then resort to harsher methods, such as blaming it on the patient in writing, after which, normally, I imagine, the patient would become only too willing to seek another doctor and try to put the past behind her. I know I did, the first time. And I now I suspect, from a comment made by the President of the London & District Academy of Medicine, that my past did come back to haunt me (via the letter written by the first doctor) and was being used against me in this new scenario with the doctor under complaint.

Thus, despite encouragement by walk-in clinics, where I have had to go for treatment and prescriptions, I have not continued to seek a new doctor. I have had a doctor make false accusations against me. If I let them go, they will stand as truth. So I am obliged to speak out. What’s more, it is entirely possible that the CPSO girl has misunderstood to such an extent that the real issues won’t even get looked into, possibly no farther than his not using registered mail to send his final letter to me.

How it stands at this time, after a second talk on July 31, with the same girl, she is going to contact the doctor and have him respond to some of the issues we have discussed, and I have a feeling they are not going to be the ones I asked about in my letter of complaint.

Update Tuesday August 12, 2014

Today I sent a letter to the Registrar, CPSO, explaining that the person assigned to my case was distorting what I said to her on the phone, ignoring what I had written in my letter of complaint, and generally, appeared to be either completely on the side of the doctor in question or just enjoying her position of power as mediator/troublemaker in this case. I stated in my letter to the Registrar (dated Aug 11, 2014) that I would like to have someone else take over, that I will not speak with her again; I also requested a copy of the letter she informed me she had sent (the second letter) to the doctor I made the complaint about. But now, to return to the main problem . . .

This is about the doctor and letting him know what I hope to accomplish by making this official complaint. There was no space on the form to state what I hoped would come from it. If the girl had read what I wrote originally, however, she would see that it was implied in the details I gave. I would like to have my reputation restored, that was harmed by his harsh attitude towards me on April 28, 2014, at his office. I need to have another doctor, and trying to obtain one while having unexplained problems with a previous doctor makes it more difficult. Of course, a patient with chronic medical issues, and with no apparent connection with the community, might be seen as not worth taking on. For these reasons I need to have the doctor take responsibility for his behaviour towards me, which was uncalled for.

So to make it clear, contrary to what the girl has assumed in her letter dated Aug 1, I am not seeking a new doctor. I have not derostered myself in order to be able to take on a new doctor. The doctor has made accusations against me in a letter to me, part of the method of termination of a patient. But he needs to stand by those claims, and not simply allow his claims about me to drop by having me deroster myself. I did not deserve to be treated the way I was at the end, nor from the start, as it happens. Why the doctor did so, and what other people – other girls in the secretarial pool said to him I don’t know. I just want this done with so I can find a doctor to look after my health concerns as I grow older.

The letter was a followup to the letter I wrote about two weeks ago, on Aug 11, to The Registrar, from whom I never did hear back – though I did get a response to the letter from the girl investigator. I have decided not to post here the letters she - the girl - has sent me as they would only draw the readers away from the complaint I made, which is probably her intention.

I am trying to get her taken off my case and someone put on it who hopefully would treat my complaint with sensitivity instead of making a joke of it and taking the doctor’s side.

Added Sept 3, 2014)
One main point in all this is that the doctor terminated me as his patient, with no follow up of current medical issues, and made accusations against me in the letter he sent to me. And yet it appears that I am expected to deroster myself formally so that I am able to register with another doctor instead of having to attend walk-in clinics and see whoever is available. But if I deroster myself with the Ministry of Health, then he is off the hook and doesn't have to explain his questionable comments about me. And it is these remarks and accusations by him that I would like the CPSO to investigate so that they can be shown for what they are - as distortions and untruths (paragraph added Sept 3, 2014).

Following are a selection of articles, including comments’ sections if available - even though incomplete - providing a sample of the issues affecting Londoners. Now that an election is drawing closer for the election on Oct 27, 2014, of London's Mayor, Ward Councillors and School Board Trustees, how some of the scandals and other problems within London, Ontario, have been handled might be of interest.

Key words are included with each of the articles and Letters to the Editor listed in the reference list below. For some of those articles and Letters, an additional link is provided, to my website, which will include a more complete list of comments than the comments in the official version.

For the most part, the articles and Letters sections I have selected are ones I contributed comments to, in a local London newspaper, which offers a place for discussion of relevant issues, or at least it did, for me, even though a good number of my comments were being deleted by moderators. If my perspectives weren’t welcome, that is unfortunate, but that doesn’t seem to me to be a good enough reason for them to be deleted in such quantities as they were, and eventually, in my not being able to have submissions approved. In a city such as London – a university city - where a diversity of viewpoints should be expected, I am disappointed that mine were not considered acceptable in that rather biased environment. I am not the only person to run into the problem of overzealous moderation, of having comments removed for no reason, though not everyone who complains about it had good reason to; rather, they might be using that tactic to suggest that they have no personal advantage in that forum.

I have gathered the articles from the London Free Press (LFP) online, from which I am now banned from expressing online where other residents and outsiders are offered the freedom to do so, in a forum that, except for me, could be considered informative and vibrant. One purpose is to provide interested readers a variety of viewpoints on these issues, including my own. Another is to have my views reinserted into the sections from where they have been removed, as much as possible, and to have them available to readers, who might otherwise only be getting to read the ‘acceptable’ views on some of these issues.

Since my research interests include gender and sexuality and class divisions, I tend to focus on these when the subjects appear in the news, not just to advertise my blog, as I am so often accused of, but to attempt to get other views across, and not simply the traditional views, or the increasingly sexualized views that so many people have in today’s world.

Prostitution is now a national issue, with the impact of legalizing brothels holding the possibility of a changed London. It might be a subject some don’t want to discuss, but fortunately, it has been, to some extent, mentioned within the pages of the LFP. Keeping in mind that tactics to silence me and distort what I say are not uncommon, I include pieces on the subject of prostitution as well as related pieces on things sexual (see on my website, Letters to the Editor, Dec 24, 2013, Dec 23, 2013; and Letters to Editor, Dec 30, 2013, Dec 29, 2013). See also on a CBC news video what a former sex worker in London, Ontario, has to say about the changes in the law: ‘Former Sex Worker Opposes Legal Brothels' (video, by Wei Chen, June 14, 2013.

The issue of an image of Katy Perry on the side of a London bus by London City Transit (LCT) is one that was controversial but quickly dealt with and cast aside. It brings to mind another incident some time ago, in which London MP Irene Mathyssen objected to what she perceived to be an incident of sexism during a parliamentary session and ended up apologizing for mentioning it. I wrote about this on my blog, the only piece mentioned on this page that is not from the LFP. See ‘Public displays of private matters - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore’, by Sue McPherson, Dec 7, 2007).

Term limits for councillors was a topic of discussion in one Letters to the Editor section, comments I had made being deleted for no apparent reason. The series of 3 comments is as follows, including a response that remains in the LFP version and my comments which was deleted.

********** S McP to J A (comment deleted)If a previous councillor were encouraged to become a mentor to newcomers to local politics, it wouldn't be a matter of simply tossing them out, as you put it. The experience they gain in politics can be applied to other occupations, if they chose to, or after one or two terms out of office they might well go into it again.We have already covered this in the other article's comments section, but here goes again. Just as many of the unemployed become exasperated at the request for 'experienced candidates only' restriction, so it must be in politics when people want to try but there is no encouragement. If there were permitted, no doubt it would be soon enough that they also came to be seen as "proven" and the "best." That's why all who can, who have something to offer, should have the chance, instead of the same ones over and over again counting on voters' loyalty to their name, or complacency when it comes to spending time on this important democratic process.P E to S McP“If a previous councillor were encouraged to become a mentor to newcomers to local politics”You might want to rethink that idea, and before you do, just consider one name, Orser.********* S McP to P E (comment deleted)I said "if".

It seemed like a good idea – not a unique one, by any means, but not deserving of the putdown by the other commenter. For anyone considering the idea of mentoring, whether formally, through a program, or informally, the idea is to match up mentor and protégé, and not even to think that everyone was capable of being a good mentor or would want to be. And yet, it was my comments that got left out of the LFP version.

The article about vandalism focused mainly on the Nazi symbol – the swastika
– though there had been another image drawn on the window – male genitals,
mentioned briefly in the article but not at all in the comments. Eventually, I
noticed the reference to the other offending image, and was in the middle of
writing a comment about it to post online when Comments were close, just 24
hours after the article had been posted. Instead, I submitted it as a Letter to
the Editor, mentioning the omission of the other image from the title, and
deleted from the window before the police arrived, and ignored in the discussion
in the writeup. I received a notice saying the LFP had received my submission,
but it was not published in the Letters to the Editor section. This is the
Letter.

Letter: Re 'Vandal defaces downtown London business with swastikas' , Nov 16
by Dale Carruthers."If the swastika offended the owner because it was so close to Remembrance
Day, why didn't the depiction of male genitals offend him as much, seeing as it
is so close to the Dec 6 commemoration of violence against women.Even though we know that male genitals have a good side to them, they do also
symbolize the harm that is done to women through rape. And many more women
suffer rape and sexual violence, surely, than Jews did what happened to them at
the hand of Nazis. So why is it this symbol of Nazi oppression and death
continues to haunt the world. Why will they (Jewish people, mainly) never let
what happened slip farther down in their consciousness! Why is this always a
reason to bring it up again, and again! Rhetorical questions. The kids will learn about the Nazis in school, though each generation will
use the swastika symbol to shock. And they will continue to use the symbol of
the penis to shock, although it seems that in today's world most people don't
object to that " (Sue McPherson). End of Letter to Editor.

As with the Kate Perry images on the side of the city’s buses, some images
are deemed acceptable to show and to discuss, and some not.

Language itself is a subject worthy of note here, as it is often used in such forums in ways that are deceitful and controlling. Specific examples can be viewed in Comments’ sections, for instance, about the use of the words ‘academic’ and ‘profession, and variations of them.

The use of the term ‘academic’ became an issue in the comments section of ‘London city councillor Matt Brown running for mayor in 2014 municipal election, by Patrick Maloney,’ Jan10, 2014). On pages 24-25 in my copy of the article and comments, now saved onto my website ( http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2014_Jan_LondonCityMattBrownForMayor.doc ), I have restored the comments that I made during the discussion of the word ‘academic.’ The word was being used incorrectly, although resistance was great to accepting my viewpoint on that.

Worse are intentional uses of language in ways that distort another’s words.
See this, in my comment, “What will there be to indicate to boys and girls that sex is special, that it isn't something you go around having just for fun, with this person or that, or to get the job you want” (on my website: Comments, LFP Letters to Editor, Dec 24, 2013 (Dec 23, 2013). My url

The response, by P E, begins with a quote from that sentence: "that it isn't something you go around having just for fun," distorting what I said. Worse, my comment isn’t on the LFP website article and Comments’ section. Only P E’s response, taking part of the sentence out of context, leaving a completely inaccurate perception of the original sentence. It’s not hard to do that, and people who do aren’t demonstrating any sense of comprehension for what was said, only trickery, or duplicity in their responses.

Another example of useless internet interaction was during a discussion on poppies – in colours red and white (Letters to the editor Nov 8, 2013, Nov 7, 2013). Sometimes it seems as though a commenter may just be waiting until the other person makes a mistake, when he can then pounce on the offending party with everything he’s got. It’s another example of taking a phrase out of context, without considering anything else the commenter has said, but using the mistake as an opportunity to present basic knowledge on the issue, while belittling the other commenter for his or her apparent lack of knowledge.

It is frustrating dealing with people who have an agenda that seems to be based more on winning, rather than discussion for the purpose of greater understanding or thinking of solutions. It’s even more frustrating to try to have a discussion when the intentions of others may not be that, but in fact may be to suppress information or certain commenters.

It leaves the moderators in a difficult position, as they cannot read every comment for its meaning, or if they do, cannot be expected to get it right every time. So they end up taking sides, against commenters themselves, sometimes, or against the world views of the commenters, and not simply against individual comments.

This has not been a complete summary of scandals and problems London has faced over the year, but a selection based on my own interests, including that of flaws in the comments system that leaves it biased and susceptible to corruption by certain individuals whose agenda may not be the good of the city of London.

If readers discover errors in citing sources, for instance, kindly let me know, and I would prefer that you do not attempt to use one or even two mistakes as evidence that my writing and ways of thinking do not have merit. If the mistakes of any commenter go on and on, and the games go on and on, then it might be time to consider what their purpose is, on the discussion forums of the London Free Press.

About Me

I graduated, as Sue Fulham, from Western University (UWO) in 1993 (HBA Sociology), and went on to do my MA in Sociology at University of Windsor. The title of my thesis was Women in transition: discourses of menopause. . . . . . . . . . . . I did my degrees later on in my life, having graduated in 1965 from Grade 13 at WCI in Woodstock, Ontario - as Susan Fulham - and raising a family - as Susan Herd. . . . . . . . . . . . . I started the blog in 2005, while living in England.